…which aren’t (usually) paid for with taxpayer dollars
But I’m guessing doing air shows counts towards training hours, so they’re going to be flying those planes regardless. Still feels like a massive waste when two of them crash and burn in a show though
As someone who doesn’t attend them anymore, I think most of the fun in an air show ALSO involves the ground stuff. As a kid I actually touched and sat in a few planes.
Air shows are pretty far reaching, you don’t have to be in the paid box seating to watch generally. For example in San Francisco you just have to be anywhere with view to the water, in Salinas its a pretty small airport so you can be anywhere around it but tickets to get in are like $30 so its worth it to me to go in and be able to climb around helicopters and stuff, see the robotics and other stuff people bring and the play area for our kid to socialize a bit with kids
That’s definitely not true. Maybe it is in the US, but seeing machines go fast or tackle complex challenges isn’t a gender-specific thing. For example, 42% of Formula 1 fans are female. Plenty of women spectating and competing at drag strips, land speed, rally, etc.
The old conservative culture of assuming things of people or pigeonholing them based on gender—like, “attract and fascinate mostly men”—is not as relevant as it used to be back in the old days, nor should it be preserved.
you’re just be pedantic. The issue isn’t about it being “mostly”, it’s about if its a “men’s” thing. A 42/58 isn’t that wide of a gap to say that it’s one gender’s thing. As the difference could likely just be attributed to other cultural factors and not the thing itself.
If office workers were split 42/58, you wouldn’t call it a “man’s” job, even if technically there’s more men.
Well, if you look at the survey where the 42% number comes from, you’ll see that 75% of new F1 fans are female and it seems to be a trend, meaning total fandom will be mostly female very soon.
That word is covering a lot of ground. Why would you let language be so ambiguous to you? What would you call 75%, and then how can you destinguish between the two if they are both “mostly”?
Only if it’s young dudes playing. Conservative men also love movies where it’s mostly just young dudes (like that 300 movie where the cast is all handsome young dudes in leather panties being led by an older middle aged dude) They really seem to prefer young dudes in general I guess.
So are drag races and monster truck rallies. Big and fast machines attract and fascinate mostly men.
…which aren’t (usually) paid for with taxpayer dollars
But I’m guessing doing air shows counts towards training hours, so they’re going to be flying those planes regardless. Still feels like a massive waste when two of them crash and burn in a show though
It happens during training, too,so I don’t really see a distinction.
Most airshows I’ve been aren’t put on by the military, they are usually just invited to a segment but often times they don’t even show up.
Most planes are privately owned like old planes or stunt pilots.
The military jets definitely cost money to move around so it is an extra expense
I’m pretty sure it does. Flyovers at ballgames etc do so I don’t see why airshows wouldn’t.
There should be an option of going to a simpler airshow. Planes takes off, circle the airfield and land, one after the other.
Most airshows have this, usually with historic planes and such. Similar with the air taxis they were showing off recently for the Olympics
Like, i know im a little odd, but i would for sure attend this if it was affordable
You can just go sit outside the airport and watch for free
Thats not a showcase of cool planes. Like a train convention but for cargo planes and jumbo jets and cool prop planes
As someone who doesn’t attend them anymore, I think most of the fun in an air show ALSO involves the ground stuff. As a kid I actually touched and sat in a few planes.
Air shows are pretty far reaching, you don’t have to be in the paid box seating to watch generally. For example in San Francisco you just have to be anywhere with view to the water, in Salinas its a pretty small airport so you can be anywhere around it but tickets to get in are like $30 so its worth it to me to go in and be able to climb around helicopters and stuff, see the robotics and other stuff people bring and the play area for our kid to socialize a bit with kids
That’s definitely not true. Maybe it is in the US, but seeing machines go fast or tackle complex challenges isn’t a gender-specific thing. For example, 42% of Formula 1 fans are female. Plenty of women spectating and competing at drag strips, land speed, rally, etc.
The old conservative culture of assuming things of people or pigeonholing them based on gender—like, “attract and fascinate mostly men”—is not as relevant as it used to be back in the old days, nor should it be preserved.
TIL 58% isn’t “mostly.”
you’re just be pedantic. The issue isn’t about it being “mostly”, it’s about if its a “men’s” thing. A 42/58 isn’t that wide of a gap to say that it’s one gender’s thing. As the difference could likely just be attributed to other cultural factors and not the thing itself.
If office workers were split 42/58, you wouldn’t call it a “man’s” job, even if technically there’s more men.
Nevertheless, if you want to say it’s not “mostly,” your example ought to do better than 42%!
Well, if you look at the survey where the 42% number comes from, you’ll see that 75% of new F1 fans are female and it seems to be a trend, meaning total fandom will be mostly female very soon.
https://cdn-8.motorsport.com/static/custom/piano/2025globalf1fansurvey.pdf
Just over half is mostly?
That’s almost 50% more men than women
Yes, anything over half is literally what “mostly” means. Doesn’t matter if it’s 99% or 51%.
Removed by mod
What the fuck is your problem? Words have meanings.
If your friend group is 6 men and 4 women, do you tell people “I’m mostly friends with men”?
Yes, they often have multiple meanings depending on context.
“It’s been a big effort by the team these past three years, but we’re mostly done now.”
sighs of relief across the research grant board
“Boom! Right on time!”
That word is covering a lot of ground. Why would you let language be so ambiguous to you? What would you call 75%, and then how can you destinguish between the two if they are both “mostly”?
Those arent used to bomb innocent civilians… Wtf are you talking about?
also racecar/nascar, its so mind-numbing boring, but conservative seems to love any kind of sports.
Only if it’s young dudes playing. Conservative men also love movies where it’s mostly just young dudes (like that 300 movie where the cast is all handsome young dudes in leather panties being led by an older middle aged dude) They really seem to prefer young dudes in general I guess.